NewEnergyNews

Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

While the OFFICE of President remains in highest regard at NewEnergyNews, this administration's position on the climate crisis makes it impossible to regard THIS president with respect. Below is the NewEnergyNews theme song until 2020.

THE POINTWind energy is not only the most mature and capable of the New Energies right now, it is also the leading voice of the New Energy industries.

That is why it is so interesting to see that, in response to the U.S. New Energy industries’ currently slowing momentum, wind is reaching out, forming alliances and pushing harder than ever for the federal policies that will matter.

Late in 2009, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and the other New Energy industries reached out to the natural gas industry in an attempt to find common ground in the nation's fight against coal dependence and the fight against greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs).

Early in June, 2010, AWEA and the United Steelworkers Union (USW) formed a Partnership for Progress and called for a national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). Shortly after that, AWEA joined the Alliance to Save Energy, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, the Biomass Power Association, Growth Energy, the Energy Recovery Council, the Geothermal Energy Association, the National Hydropower Association, and the Solar Energy Industries Association to declare THE TIME IS NOW for a national RES.

Wind, the ultimate American can-do energy industry, can and is doing what it has to. That it created a boom from 2004 to 2008, rose to a pinnacle of accomplishment and took over international leadership in wind energy production despite shoddy and inconsistent federal policy support means nothing now. That it went from 2,500 U.S. jobs in 2004 to 18,500 jobs in 2009 means nothing now. That it quadrupled its yearly capacity additions to 10 gigawatts in 2009 and finished the year with a world-leading 35+ gigawatts of cumulative U.S. capacity means nothing now.

What matters now is that the New Energies – and their new allies – be heard.

Political leaders in Washington, D.C., will – when they finish eulogizing Senator Byrd and tormenting Ms. Kagan – go to work on legislation in response to the April coal mine cave-in disaster that killed 29 miners and the even worse Gulf oil spill that killed 11 offshore oil platform workers and resulted in an environmental and economic atrocity for the region.

What matters now is that those political leaders get the message that fossil fuel-perpetrated devastations will only come to an end when the nation turns with all its might to New Energy.

What matters now is that those political leaders come to understand there is a choice in the kind of energy they subsidize and there are real and devastating consequences when they subsidize dirty and dangerous energies.

What matters now is that those political leaders also come to understand there is a huge opportunity for the nation in New Energy. It is an opportunity to staunch the flow of U.S. treasure to profoundly troubled places and people, to enhance the nation’s energy security, to invest in domestic sources of power generation in a way that will rehabilitate its economy and to get the nation on the world’s side in the fight against climate change and killer air pollution.

So the wind industry is speaking out. It is calling for federal policies that will give it a level playing field against its Old Energy competitors. Industries like nuclear energy, natural gas and coal have long had support in the form of federal subsidies, guarantees and incentives. The Old Energies, in fact, could not exist without such support. Wind and the other New Energies aske only that the rules be fair. Either take away their competitors’ advantages or give them long term policies like:

(1) A national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) requiring U.S. utilities to obtain 25% of their power from New Energy sources by 2025,(2) An extension of the Recovery Act's 1603 convertible tax credit,(3) A cap and price on greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) with protections for vulnerable domestic industries,(4) Legislation to facilitate extensive development of new transmission infrastructure,(5) Expanded funding for the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit to subsidize the building and renovation of manufacturing capacity,(6) Further loan guarantees for new and renovated New Energy manufacturing capacity, (7) Enactment and funding of the Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology (IMPACT) and Renewable Energy Market Access Program (REMAP) Acts to grow the domestic manufacturing supply chain,(8) Funding for the Green Jobs Act to insure a trained job force, and(9) Support for states to further develop similar subsidies, guarantees and incentives.

During the press conference held to announce the release of Winds Of Change, one of the speakers intended to say that not backing U.S. turbine makers with strong policies could result in the “cessation” of manufacturing activity and the wealth of economic benefits that come with it. He inadvertently said “secession” instead. But his malapropism was closer to the truth.

Turbine manufacturing will not cease. It will secede from the U.S. and move to other countries, countries like Turkey and China and India where they are backing their New Energy industries because they see what the fossil fuel addicts in U.S. political power centers refuse to see. They see that New Energy is the future and no matter how hard they try to stop it, it is coming. It is coming and it is bringing enormous opportunities for those countries smart enough to seize them. The time is now. NOW.

On the strength of only an inconsistent federal production tax credit (PTC) and some strong state policies, the wind industry grew its manufacturing sector jobs 7 times over in the last 5 years to 18,500. Strong, long-term policies could generate tens of thousands of jobs.

The record-breaking growth in the wind industry from 2004 to 2009 came because Congress sustained the PTC over that period. During that period, the domestic supply chain was developed but turbine manufacturing capacity lagged because the world’s biggest turbine companies are not based in the U.S. and require longer-term policy support to make the kinds of large and extended investments necessary to build plants.

The result of Congress allowing crucial 2009 Recovery Act benefits for wind to expire at the end 2010 is that wind development fell off in the first quarter of 2010 to its lowest point in 3 years: 539 megawatts. At its current pace, it may not achieve even a quarter of its 2009 benchmark.

Another bust looms, with 14,000 planned manufacturing jobs and billions in revenues threatened.

The U.S. wind industry grew an average of 39% per year from 2004 to 2009. It added 10,000 megawatts in 2009, bringing cumulative capacity to a world-leading 35,000+ megawatts, enough to power 9.7 million U.S. homes.

The last time the U.S. led the world was in the early 1980s. Because of the failure of federal policy, U.S. wind looks to lose its world leadership to China either this year or next.

The U.S. invented utility-scale wind energy in the early 1980s as the result of the Energy Tax Act of 1978 that created a 15% Energy Investment Tax Credit (EITC) through 1985 and the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 that required utilities to purchase New Energy.

In 1985, the wind industry built 1,000 megawatts but – because of waning policy support and cheap natural gas – never achieved that level of development again until 2001.

In 1986, the U.S. had ~90% of the world’s wind capacity, most in California. Between 1987 and 1997, the EITC expired, Europe grew strong policies, the U.S. built less than 50 megawatts of wind per year and, by 1998, the U.S. had 1,853 megawatts of wind while Europe had 6,453 megawatts.

The U.S. got back in the game after 2001, thanks largely to state RESs, other state policies, and the re-enactment of the federal PTC yearly from 2005 to 2009. The wind industry went from a 2004 installed capacity of 6,700 megawatts to 2009’s 35,000 megawatts.

The supply chain grew but turbine manufacturers rarely took the plunge because of such inconsistency in federal policy.

2009’s record-breaking growth was directly attributable to the Recovery Act’s extension of the PTC for 3 years and allowing it to be converted into a 30% Investment Tax Credit (ITC) that could be exchanged for a cash grant through 2010.

As AWEA and its blue collar allies continually insist, wind turbine manufacturers need longer-term policies and the long-term promise of markets – comparable to what they can get in Europe, China and India -- in order to make the big investments their facilities require.

China has set the goal of building 100 gigawatts of wind by 2020 and the central government is doing everything possible to support its wind industry in achieving the target. Its industry built almost 14 gigawatts in 2009 and looks ready to leave the U.S. industry in the dust sometime in 2011 or 2012.

The U.S. wind industry’s “fundamentals” are considered sound. All that’s lacking is strong, long-term supportive policy: (1) The wind industry manufacturing sector added/expanded 100+ facilities since 2007 and has 240+ facilities in a ready-to-serve component supply chain. The domestic sector has tower and blade makers and nacelle assembly facilities. (2) Makers of nacelle internals, the smaller, highly complex, high-value “brains and heart” of a turbine, are just getting started. (3) In 2005, the U.S. wind industry built ~2,500 megawatts and ~25% was from the domestic manufacturing supply chain but in 2009 it built 10,000+ megawatts and ~50% was from the domestic manufacturing supply chain. (5) Research suggests there is no reason the domestic manufacturing supply chain cannot supply a significantly larger portion of what is installed in the U.S. if the turbines themselves are also made domestically.

Towers: There are 20 U.S. utility-scale turbine tower makers, 14 added since 2004. Texas, which has the biggest U.S. installed capacity, has 25% of the online and announced tower manufacturing. The value of imported towers fell in 2009 while the value of the domestic market grew 20%, indicating strong demand for U.S. towers.

Blades: There are 13 U.S. blade manufacturing facilities, 9 added since 2004. 3 are planned. The value of imported blades fell in 2009 while the U.S. installations grew, again indicative of strong demand for domestic blades.

OEMs and Nacelle Assembly: 9 turbine manufacturers, or original equipmentmanufacturers (OEMs), had more than a percent of U.S. wind installations. There 8 domestic nacelle assembly facilities and 8 more are planned.

Nacelle Internals: As nacelle assembly facilities double (see above), demand for nacelle internals, the very complex, high-value components that make up the “heart and brains” of the turbine, will grow.

The first U.S. facility for any of the 3 major components – gearboxes, generators and drives – came online in 2009. There is also a growing supply chain for smaller, sub-components like bearings, electricals and hydraulic systems.

Needed: New foundry capacity to do the castings required in utility-scale turbines. Large castings (the mainframe, hub, rotor shaft, etc.) weigh 30 tons and more. Domestic manufacturing of them is much preferable to shipping them.

Offshore Wind Turbines: There is no U.S. offshore wind industry. It is all opportunity.

The study includes discussions of:(1) the job potential in wind manufacturing (showing that the current 14,000 jobs waiting in wind manufacturing could grow to 30,000 with supportive policies),(2) the factors that will drive growth in a domestic wind manufacturing sector (showing the most important factor is the sheer price advantage from making the 250-to-400 ton turbines near where they will be erected rather than importing them), and (3) the role state policies can play in building a domestic manufacturing sector (showing states' biggest roles should be in supporting markets and training workers).

The last part of the new paper is a discussion of the urgently needed policy measures that will build a long-term market to support a domestic wind energy manufacturing sector.

(1) A national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) requiring U.S. utilities to obtain 25% of their power from New Energy sources by 2025:

36 countries, including China and all the EU member states, have an RES. Research shows a national RES would bring 274,000 new U.S. jobs. 29 states and D.C. already have an RES. It is not currently high on the Congressional agenda.

(2) A cap and price on greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) with protections for vulnerable domestic industries:

Caps should match the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-stated call for GhG reductions of 80% below the 1990 level by 2050. Mechanisms must be legislated though which the caps can be achieved. Research shows hard caps with a workable mechanism to achieve them and protections for vulnerable domestic industries could drive the growth of New Energy even more effectively than an RES.

The Treasure grant in lieu of the ITC not only salvaged a recession-year downturn in the wind industry but turned it into a record year. The Renewable EnergyExpansion Act of 2010, from Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore), and the American Renewable Energy Jobs Act, from Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), would both extend the cash grant option through 2012. Any serviceable bill should make the mechanism automatic. Any extension should also: (a) Require goals, (b) Require reporting, and (c) Require feedback data analysis to reconcile experience with the bill’s intent.

(4) Expanded funding of $5 billion for the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit to subsidize the building and renovation of manufacturing capacity:

(5) Further loan guarantees for new and renovated New Energy manufacturing capacity:

Longterm, lower-cost debt is especially important to manufacturers because their capital costs are so high and the current financial environment makes it otherwise prohibitively expensive. A variety of mechanisms exist. The report recommends funding a pair of them at ~$2 billion each.

(6) Enactment and funding of the Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology (IMPACT) and Renewable Energy Market Access Program (REMAP) Acts to grow the domestic supply manufacturing supply chain:

IMPACT creates a $30 billion state-level loan fund and adds $1.5 billion to the existing Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to help New Energy manufacturers retool.

The Renewable Energy Market Access Program (REMAP) would help small and medium-sized New Energy companies export to existing and new markets abroad and learn how to best access foreign markets.

(7) Funding for the Green Jobs Act at $125 million per year to insure a trained job force:

The New Energy manufacturing sector requires workers with skills but ~1.6 million U.S. manufacturing workers are near retirement age and 57% of working adults lack basic skills or an educational credential beyond high school. The Green Jobs Act helps close the skills gap and should be fully funded at its authorized level of $125 million per year.

(8) Legislation to facilitate extensive development of new transmission infrastructure:

To use 25% New Energy, a complete effort from local, state, and federal officials to fund and build new transmission infrastructure will be necessary. It will require streamlined permitting, funding, skilled workers to build and implement it but it will create big economic benefits. Policy barriers, the biggest obstacle, can be addressed through (a) Interconnection-Wide Transmission Planning, (b) Interconnection-Wide Transmission Cost Allocation and Certainty for Cost Recovery, and (c) Federal Siting initiatives.

QUOTES- From the report’s conclusion: “The American wind industry has made impressive strides towards increasing domestic content in installed wind turbines and has brought thousands of jobs online in manufacturing. However, the wind manufacturing sector is still developing, with the opportunity to bring tens of thousands of additional jobs online. In order to justify investment in opening new facilities and expanding or retooling existing facilities, Congress must take action to ensure a long-term, stable wind energy market. Coupled with other policies to support the U.S. manufacturing sector, these actions would enable the wind industry to develop robust supply chains and employ thousands of Americans in good, clean energy jobs.”

"…[S]tarting in about 4Q 2008, a scant six quarters ago, the solar industry abruptly moved from a supply-driven market to a demand-driven market, resulting in…Financial performance of world leaders in solar cell and module manufacturing plunged to devastating losses and low-cost manufacturing, while maintaining module efficiency defined new world leaders…[A] financial crisis second only to that of the Great Depression…Technologies…struggling to survive…and…Module average selling prices (ASPs) fell so fast that the road to grid parity was redefined…

"This report examines these events and defines…the key drivers…and the new solar market…[It] projects that the supply of solar modules will greatly exceed demand in 2010…Pike Research believes that the forecasted 8.2 gigawatts (GW) of unsold inventories in 2010 is unsustainable and will result in the consolidation of less competitive cell and module manufacturers."

"Which companies will survive and lead…Which companies…are the most likely candidates for closure or acquisition…What are the…competitive capabilities…Which module technologies will grow…why are cadmium telluride (CdTe) modules leading the Market…?

"This report answers these questions…[and] Describes the market shift and the root causes…Forecasts demand of 10.1 GW…and projects that solar demand will grow to 19.3 GW by 2013…Forecasts a significant oversupply of solar modules reaching 18.3 GW under a most likely scenario in 2010 that will be produced by 193 cell and module manufacturers…Separates the large number of manufacturers into Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 categories…"

"…[W]ith module ASPs falling to under $1.50/W by the end of 2010, according to Pike Research analysis, solar market growth is set to grow at a 24.5% CAGR from 2010 through 2013 to reach 19.3 GW…[I]f demand, particularly in the United States and China, is spurred by even lower module ASPs and higher fossil fuel-generated power cost and grows at a faster pace, total worldwide demand for solar modules could exceed 26 GW…[T]he solar market looks to be poised for sustainable growth that outpaces most other markets…"

"ACEEE based its findings on a review of 57 different residential sector feedback programs between 1974 and 2010…ACEEE found that three of the most promising approaches in the short- to medium-term include enhanced billing, daily/weekly feedback, and "off line" and Web-based real-time feedback…[P]rograms that go beyond "smart meters" are few and far between…[N]o U.S. utilities are currently providing the full range of needed services…"

"Beyond a short-term move to enhanced billing programs, households could see even greater levels of savings through the application of more sophisticated programs that integrate utility-based advanced metering initiatives with on-line or in-home energy displays and tailored guidance regarding the highest-impact means of reducing energy waste. Utilities across the country are investing in new electricity meters that provide two-way communications between the meter and the utility, and that monitor and collect household energy use data on an hourly basis (or even more frequently).

"When paired with an on-line program, households can increase their knowledge about how they are using energy. When combined with an in-home display, electricity consumers can witness the amount of energy that they are consuming in real-time, calculate the month-end impact of their current consumption patterns, and assess the impact of adopting new practices and more energy-efficient technologies. The average electricity savings associated with online services providing daily/weekly feedback (the Google PowerMeter is one example) is about 8 percent while real-time feedback has witnessed an average savings about 9 percent per participating household…"

"Energy-use feedback can help households gain control over their energy use practices, reduce the amount of wasted energy, and reduce electricity consumption by 4 to 12 percent…[C]onsumers might enjoy a cumulative net savings of $2 to $35 billion or more over the next 20 years…

"Advanced (or "smart") metering initiatives alone are neither necessary nor sufficient for providing households with the feedback that they need to achieve energy savings, however they do offer important opportunities…[A]dvanced meters must be used in conjunction with in-home (or on-line) displays and well-designed programs that successfully inform, engage, empower, and motivate people…Utilities and policymakers should…ensure that U.S. households receive needed feedback…Providing households with persistent feedback has resulted in sustained savings over time…"

"Five Toyota Prius plug-in hybrid cars are now in San Diego as part of the company’s efforts to find out how they will perform in the real world…

"The cars are among 600 production models based on the 2010 Prius that Toyota is lending to organizations worldwide to fine-tune its design and help utilities better understand how the electric cars will affect grid operations."

Like San Diego, cities all over the country are installing chargers. From TheMcdiana via YouTube

"Each car features a larger battery than a standard Prius and can go 13 miles, and up to 62 mph, using only electricity…When the battery charge is depleted, the car’s gasoline engine kicks in and it operates like a standard Prius, in which an electric motor using battery power supplements the battery charge…It will take three hours to fully charge the battery using standard household power, and half as much time using a 240-volt connection.

"When the cars hit dealerships in 2012, they will cost more than a typical Prius, which now sells for about $22,000, though Toyota won’t say how much more."

"Toyota is one of several companies introducing plug-in cars in coming years. The $100,000-plus Tesla Roadster is the first of the current generation of plug-in cars to hit the road. Nissan plans to roll out its Leaf all-electric car in December, and plug-in models are expected from Chevrolet, Mitsubishi, Tesla, Aptera and Fisker, among others...Some use only electricity, others have gasoline engines that turn on when batteries are depleted.

"Supporters…say they help reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions because they can move without burning gasoline….But, because they rely on expensive batteries, the cars are pricier than similar non-electric models. State and federal governments are handing out rebates and tax credits in an effort to make the cars more affordable…"

"Life and material science companyDSM NV… has developed a new bioconversion technology, which will improve efficiency in developing second-generation biofuels, or biofuel from waste agricultural products.

"DSM will unveil what it describes as a breakthrough in bioconversion…at the world congress on biotechnology…"

"The new process includes using an enzyme which breaks down cellulose in wood, plant and other waste agricultural products. The sugars produced from the waste agriculture products are then converted by DSM's "advanced yeast" strain into ethanol, or biofuel. DSM coins the process an "all you can eat yeast," which substantially improves the conversion rate, up to 100% yield improvement, of sugars into ethanol.

"DSM says it's now actively marketing both its differentiated enzyme and advanced yeast technologies as an integrated bioconversion solution, for the second generation, advanced bio fuels market, which DSM says is forecasted to grow exponentially over the next decade."

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

SENATOR BYRD AND THE COSTS OF COAL

THE POINTIn the last year of his life, Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) taught, not for the first time, the most important lesson of his long and storied public service.

Senator Byrd’s career demonstrates it is possible to – with integrity – change a publicly held position. In Byrd’s case there was in fact more integrity because he found the courage decades ago to reverse his racist position on segregation, denounce his affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan and become one of the stalwart defenders of civil rights.

In December 2009, Senator Byrd made an equally profound shift. After fighting his entire life on behalf of West Virginia’s coal industry, he concluded in December 2009 that he and his state must prepare to move on. In Coal Must Embrace the Future, Byrd wrote “Change is no stranger to the coal industry. Think of the huge changes which came with the onset of the Machine Age in the late 1800’s. Mechanization has increased coal production and revenues, but also has eliminated jobs, hurting the economies of coal communities. In 1979, there were 62,500 coal miners in the Mountain State. Today there are about 22,000… [C]hange is undeniably upon the coal industry again…”

Senator Byrd called for “…an open and honest dialogue about coal’s future in West Virginia…” After assuring his coal industry constituency that no “…effort to do away with the coal industry could ever succeed in Washington because there is no available alternative energy supply that could immediately supplant the use of coal for base load power generation in America…” he went on to warn them that to “…be part of any solution, one must first acknowledge a problem. To deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say “deal me out.” West Virginia would be much smarter to stay at the table.”

Though Senator Byrd did not have The Impact of Coal on the West Virginia State Budget, from Downstream Strategies, to base his remarks on, he certainly could see what was then quite evident and what the report makes abundantly clear. West Virginia’s economically accessible coal supply is dwindling and the costs of being a coal supplier are going up. The report calculates that when all the costs are compared with the benefits, coal costs West Virginia more –$97.5 million more in 2009 – than it benefits the state.

The benefits are obvious: Direct and indirect jobs in the tens of thousands and tax revenues in the hundreds of millions. The costs are less obvious and often go uncalculated. For instance, the total tax revenues related to the coal industry’s direct jobs in 2009 was ~$125.5 million but the state expenditures in support of those jobs was ~$125.9 million.

On the whole, it is true that the coal industry still generates a lot of money for West Virginia. But when things like the compromised health and work injuries that come from working in the industry and things like the wear and tear on the state's roads and infrastructure are paid off, the state comes out a loser from hosting its coal industry.

In this season of graduations, it is worth noting that while so-called smart people continue to sneer that the New Energies can never be big enough to replace the Old and Dirty Energies, Senator Byrd showed that it is never too late to learn. Now that he has gone to his final graduation, perhaps it is time for his beloved state to pay close attention to his last strong advice about coal:

“The future of coal and indeed of our total energy picture,” Byrd, one of West Virginia’s greatest champions, wrote, “lies in change and innovation. In fact, the future of American industrial power and our economic ability to compete globally depends on our ability to advance energy technology…West Virginians can choose to anticipate change and adapt to it, or resist and be overrun by it. One thing is clear. The time has arrived for the people of the Mountain State to think long and hard about which course they want to choose.”

THE DETAILSThe report is based on compiled West Virginia (WV) budget data, estimated tax revenues, and budget expenditures for Fiscal Year 2009 (July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009).

WV’s Northern and Central Appalachia coal basins produce ~one-third of U.S. coal. In 2008, the state produced ~164 million tons of coal and employed 22,493 miners, managers, and upper-level staff. Five counties produced 50+% of the state’s coal.

Production levels fluctuate but WV's peak output was 177.5 million tons in 1997. It fell off 11% through 2007 before 2008’s slight uptick. Underground production has fallen 25% but the generally less expensive surface mining has increased 20%.

While coal is already costing WV more than it brings in, coming changes are likely to make coal even more costly.

Factors that are likely to make coal less cost-competitive: (1) The depletion of the lowest-cost reserves, (2) implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, (3) climate legislation that prices greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs), (4) tighter restrictions on mercury emissions, (5) regulations of coal ash and other combustion wastes, and (6) pending restrictions on the valley fills that make mountaintop removal mining especially environmentally abhorrent.

Net impact of the coal industry and employees on West Virginia without consideration of tax expenditures or impacts of indirect coal industry employment: +$193.2 million.

Direct revenues from West Virginia’s coal industry: The payment of taxes and fees to the state’s General Revenue Fund and State Road Fund was ~$307.3 million (the coal severance tax, corporate net income tax, business franchise tax, and other taxes). This was ~8% of the General Revenue Fund and less than 1% of the State Road Fund.

State budget direct expenditures for West Virginia’s coal industry: ~$113.7 million for FY 2009, spent entirely because of the coal industry and paid for with general revenue and state road funds. Examples: Units of government within the Department of Commerce and Department of Environmental Protection and expenditures for the repair of the state’s coal haul roads.

Direct WV off-budget expenditures for the coal industry (FY 2009): ~$173.8 million, in the form of foregone revenues from the tax exemptions, credits, and reduced or preferential tax rates that reduce the money available for other government programs and services.

Revenues from direct and indirect jobs (FY 2009): 21,012 West Virginia residents were directly employed by coal. Tax revenues from those jobs were ~$125.5 million. There was also about ~$167.9 million in state revenues from indirect coal industry jobs.

Expenditures from direct and indirect jobs (FY 2009): Supporting the direct jobs cost the state ~$125.9 million. Supporting the indirect jobs cost the state ~$284.8 million.

The net loss to West Virginia on direct jobs in FY 2009 was $0.4 million. The net loss to the state from indirect jobs in FY 2009 was ~$116.9 million.

Coal’s legacy costs, 1: When coal mine operators leave mines incompletely reclaimed, the state bears the cost of polluted drainage, drinking water contamination, and health and safety threats. West Virginia had 4,391 abandoned mine lands in 2009. $464 million has been spent on them. $1.5 billion of work is still necessary. The main funding mechanism to reclaim bond forfeiture sites is insufficient and will expire in 2022. If no action is taken to impose the cost of reclaiming these sites on the coal industry, a further substantial burden will fall to the state.

Coal’s legacy costs, 2: The virtually non-stop caravanning of coal carrying trucks has a devastating impact on the state’s roads and bridges. The cost for dealing with what is done by overweight coal trucks is ~$4.0 billion. If the state spends ~$200 million per year to repair and replace infrastructure and all coal trucks stop now, it would take 20 years to bring the state's roads and bridges back.

When all revenues and expenditures are considered, the coal industry cost West Virginia ~$97.5 million in FY 2009. The numbers are the numbers. Senator Byrd was entirely right. It is time to think about innovation and change.

Recommended policy changes to insure that coal industry costs are paid from revenues from the coal industry and not by the taxpayer: (1) Maintain the workers’ compensation coal tax revenues and create a Permanent Economic Diversification Fund. (2) Increase the coal severance tax rate and distribute the monies to coal-producing counties. (3) Restructure the thin-seam tax credit. (4) Match funding of reclamation and water treatment to present and future needs. (5) Increase the per-ton fee on coal haul trucks to match road repair needs. (6) Increase fines for exceeding permitted haul weights to match the harm it does to roads.

Because mining is expected to produce less revenue and cost more, it is vital to be sure the industry provides not only for its yearly costs but for its legacy costs as well. New policies may be needed.

Bottom line: The impacts of coal go far beyond traditional accountings of revenues and expenditures, especially when legacy costs from past and future coal industry activity are considered. It is vital for West Virginia to attend to having funds available for such impacts on the local and state economies, on the environment, and on the health of West Virginia residents.

And it is time for West Virginians to start thinking about the immense and barely-tapped potential of their state's New Energy assets.

QUOTES- From the report on the costs of WV coal: “Coal plays a significant role in West Virginia’s economy, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local revenue and providing well-paying jobs to tens of thousands of West Virginians. However, the size of the coal economy, while substantial, is not as considerable as previous accounts suggest. Further, such accounts have only presented coal’s benefits; our estimates provide an initial accounting of both benefits and costs. As estimated in this report, the industry itself—including its direct and indirect employees—actually costs West Virginia state taxpayers more than it provides. Such an accounting is important, for projected declines in production, should they prove accurate, will further diminish coal’s contribution to state revenues, while the negative impacts resulting from coal industry activity will result in ongoing costs to the state and its citizens.”

"According to a report…[from] the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), BlueGreen Alliance and the United Steelworkers, the U.S. wind industry can create tens of thousands of additional jobs manufacturing wind turbines and components if the U.S. passes long-term policies that create a stable market for the domestic wind energy supply chain…

"Winds of Change: A Manufacturing Blueprint for the Wind Industryhighlights growth for the American wind industry despite the absence of a long-term and stable market for wind energy, or policies to support wind’s manufacturing sector. While the growth in wind energy manufacturing has been steady — growing from 2,500 workers in 2004 to 18,500 in 2009 — tens of thousands of additional jobs manufacturing wind turbines and components, such as towers, gearboxes, and bearings, could be created with policies that establish a long-term, stable market and support the manufacturing sector’s transition to the wind industry…"

"…The report recommends a federal [Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) requiring that U.S. utilities obtain 25% of their power from New Energy sources by 2025] with meaningful mid-term targets, regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and policies specifically aimed at building the U.S. wind energy manufacturing sector…"

"Along with the RES, specific policies aimed at building the wind manufacturing sector include extending and strengthening the Recovery Act’s convertible tax credit program (1603), fully funding the Green Jobs Act, building a transmission grid infrastructure to meet the demand for clean energy and utilizing loan guarantee programs for commercial manufacturing of clean energy.

"In a dramatic display of the power feed-in tariffs have in driving markets, Italy installed more solar photovoltaics (PV) in 2009 than the entire US. Moreover, within the first quarter of 2010, Italy's total installed solar PV capacity was expected to exceed that of the US.

"Italy installed 720 MW of solar PV in 2009, nearly all of that on rooftops. In contrast, the US installed 435 MW during the same period…Italy introduced a system of feed-in tariffs for solar PV in February, 2007…By the end of 2007, Italy had installed five times more solar PV than in the previous year. Despite numerous bureaucratic roadblocks, the solar industry took off in 2008 and installed nearly 350 MW, then a record-breaking number. Solar PV installations have been doubling since then and are expected to reach 1,500 MW in 2010."

"Italy is three-fourths the size of California, with which it is often compared because of their similarly-sized economies. Italy has a population of 60 million, to California's 40 million. The population of the US is five times that of Italy.

"Italy is now the world's second largest annual market for solar PV, after Germany…[T]here were 1,250 MW of total installed solar PV capacity in the US at the end of 2009…[and] the US is installing 40-50 MW per month…Italy [is installing] 125 MW per month. At this pace, Italy surpassed the US in total installed PV capacity before the end of the first quarter and likely by the end of February, 2010…Italy is installing more capacity--250 MW--every two months than California is installing per year."

"By the end of 2010, Italy will have a total installed capacity of more than 2,500 MW. This is two and one-half times more capacity than expected in California, and one and one-half times more than expected in the US…Italy's 2007 decree also set a solar PV target of 1,200 MW…[which they reached] earlier this year.

"…The proposed revision to [Italy’s] feed-in tariff program…currently waiting approval, reduces the tariffs and sets a new target of 3,000 MW for the three-year period from 2011 to 2013…[It] cuts the tariffs 18% in three equal steps of 6% during each of the first three quarters in 2011…93% of all solar PV in Italy is installed on rooftops in distributed applications…"

"Dreams of braking global warming by storing carbon emissions from power plants could be undermined by the risk of leakage, according to a [new] study…

"Rich countries have earmarked tens of billions of dollars of investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS), a technology that is still only at an experimental stage…[that would capture]…carbon dioxide (CO2)…from plants that are big burners of oil, gas and coal…[and] buried in the deep ocean or piped into underground chambers…"

"CCS supporters say the sequestered carbon would slow the pace of man-made warming. It would buy time for politicians to forge an effective treaty…Critics say CCS could be dangerous if the stored gas returns to the atmosphere. They also argue that its financial cost, still unknown, could be far greater than tackling the source of the problem itself.

"Thenew research, published by the journal Nature Geoscience, wades into the debate with an estimate of capturing enough carbon to help limit warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)…Storing CO2 in the ocean will contribute to acidification of the sea, with dangers that reverberate up the food chain…It also carries a higher risk of being returned to the atmosphere by ocean currents and storms."

"Underground storage is a better option, but only if the geological chamber does not have a significant leak or is breached by an earthquake or some other movement…The gas will have to be stored for tens of thousands of years to avoid becoming a threat to future generations, a scenario similar to that for nuclear waste…[L]ess than one percent of the stored volume [per 1,000 years] can be allowed to leak…To offset any bigger leak, re-sequestration [i.e., grabbing and storing an equivalent amount of CO2 from the air]…would be needed…But this would be a cost burden that could last for millennia…

"Until only recently, CCS was widely dismissed as fantasy or a last-ditch option…In 2008, the Group of Eight (G8) summit recommended launching 20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects by 2010…[O]ver the past two years, countries have committed 26 billion dollars in CCS projects…"

"KEMA concludes that accommodating 33% renewable generation by 2020 (the state's renewable portfolio standard) will require major alterations to system operations…[and] notes that California may need between 3 GW and 5 GW or more of conventional (fossil-fuel-powered or hydroelectric) generation to meet load and planning reserve requirements."

"The report analyzes the effect of increasing renewable energy generation on California's electricity system and assesses and quantifies the system's ability to keep generation and energy consumption in balance…

"The study also examines the relative benefit of deploying fast-response electricity storage versus utilizing conventional generation to regulate and balance load requirements…[It] concludes that a 30 MW to 50 MW storage device is as effective as a 100 MW combustion turbine used for regulation…The prospective benefits to California from the development of fast electricity storage resources for use in system regulation, balancing, and renewable ramping mitigation are significant…"

Monday, June 28, 2010

THE FIGHT FOR AN ENERGY-CLIMATE BILL IN THE SENATE

THE POINTIt’s kind of funny to listen to the so-called experts talk about the fight for energy and climate legislation reportedly coming to the Senate floor in July. Never have so many experts sounded so befuddled.

This is what is happening: Because of the Gulf oil spill, the situation has gone from dormant to dynamic. The death of Senator Byrd (D-WV) only adds uncertainty. The fate of any legislation is now unpredictable, so everybody – everybody left in the game, that is – is taking their best shot.

Besides measures to deal with offshore oil drilling – like increased liability requirements for drillers and reform of the Minerals Management Service (MMS) that oversees the drilling) – what will the legislation contain? Perhaps nothing else and perhaps much more.

To the disappointment of the New Energy industries, KL has no Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) requiring all regulated U.S. utilities to obtain a specific portion of their power from New Energy sources by a specific year. The Bingaman ACELA does have an RES.

The problem is that a cap is the bane of conservatives. As demonstrated by the ACELA proposal by Senator Bingaman, which has no cap, conservatives reject the many studies showing a GhG cap will not significantly raise utility rates and they ignore the provisions in KL that return revenues to businesses and ratepayers most harmed by the impacts of a cap.

Conservatives have successfully labeled Cap&Trade as “cap-and-tax” and made it politically untenable. The Bingaman ACELA, which eschews Cap&Trade and includes the New Energy industries-favored RES, is the perfect anti-KL option. That is why Senators Cantwell and Collins are pushing Cap&Dividend

The Cantwell-Collins CLEAR Act Cap&Dividend proposal is a straightforward way to impose a cap using a simple framework. So far, it has avoided being labeled a tax because, instead of imposing IRS-like complexity, it directly rebates most of the revenues from its cap to citizens and allots the balance to the building of New Energy and Energy Efficiency infrastructure. (See CAP&DIVIDEND CLEAR-ED…)

The Lugar Practical Energy and Climate Plan (PECP) avoids the GhG-capping controversy and New Energy issues by centering almost entirely on Gulf oil spill-related measures and calling for stronger vehicle fuel efficiency standards. It is ideal for conservatives who want to give no significant ground and it could become part of something larger and more substantive as the floor fight proceeds.

Both the Peterson Institute and ClimateWorks studies, using substantive research and statistical analyses, insist KL, whatever its complexities, is not a “subversive tax.”

ClimateWorks Foundation used McKinsey & Company's Low Carbon Economics Tool to conclude KL will (1) grow 540,000 more jobs than business-as-usual (BAU) from 2012 to 2030, (2) cut residential utility bills $35 per year through 2020, (3) sustain a 2.3% per year growth in the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) through 2030, and (4) cut U.S. GhGs 45% below BAU by 2030.

With revenues raised by capping GhGs and auctioning permits to very big emitters like power plants and heavy industries, ClimateWorks finds KL will drive the transition to a New Energy economy by motivating investment in and implementation of New Energy (NE) and Energy Efficiency (EE) on a significant scale.

The ClimateWorks study uses a variety of McKinsey economic modeling tools to conclude that such a transition to a New Energy economy will drive job gains across the manufacturing, construction, services, health, trade, and other sectors of the U.S. economy.

From SenatorCantwell via YouTube

THE DETAILSMcKinsey & Company’s Low Carbon Economics Tool is widely acknowledged as a detailed and unbiased set of interlinked economic models. It was designed to determine the costs and greenhouse gas emission (GhG) reductions from a given policy proposal.

ClimateWorks assumed a significant economic impact from New Energy (NE) and Energy Efficiency (EE) even with business-as-usual (BAU). It found, however, that KL will accelerate those impacts through 3 key mechanisms: (1) a price on GhGs, (2) funding for investment in and implementation of NE and EE, and (3) EE standards.

BAU will increase employment in the health care, services, trade and other sectors of the U.S. economy by 12 million from 2012 to 2030. There will also be 4.1 million fewer industrial jobs in construction, manufacturing, utilities, and natural resources. That is a net gain of 8 million jobs.

With KL, economy-wide investments will lead to 110,000 more net jobs being retained from 2012 to 2020 and 150,000 more retained to 2030. Overall, there will be 440,000 more jobs than BAU from 2012 to 2020 and 540,000 more to 2030. Considering the other pluses from the legislation (GhG reductions, little harm to GDP or residential utility bills), these are impressive job numbers.

The legislation will keep Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth about the same, ~$9 billion per year from 2012 to 2030, as BAU. The idea behind the legislation is to protect growth and electricity ratepayers while growing jobs and cutting GhGs.

Because of the cap, offset opportunities and the EE standards in the bill, GhGs drop significantly – to 45% below BAU – through 2030.

The most GhG cuts will come from offset opportunities, part of which will necessarily come from offsetting international sources. As a result of the cap, the most GhG cuts will come from the shift to increased electricity generation by nuclear, “clean” coal (CCS), and New Energy. The third major source of GhG cuts will come from Energy Efficiency in buildings and industry. The bill will have little impact on GhGs in the transportation sector.

The caps will cause electricity and natural gas prices to increase but reductions in energy consumption and rebates to consumers from local distribution companies (LDCs) will offset the price increases and protect ratepayers.

By imposing a cap on GhGs, auctioning allowances and creating a marketplace for allowances, the electricity sector, which emits 40% of U.S. GhGs, will shift by 2030 away from dirty coal to EE, CCS, New Energy and nuclear. The EE standard in the bill will also drive EE gains. The low-interest loans and accelerated deprecation for new nuclear plants will grow nuclear. ~$94 billion of the auction revenues are dedicated to the development of CCS.

The bill has no RES and only dedicates $5 billion to New Energy because research shows a cap will drive the growth of New Energy more than such measures.

The bill contains an Energy Efficiency resource standard (EERS) requiring utilities to advance EE because such measures are so cost-effective and within a few years generate ~$3 of savings for each $1 invested, money that can be invested in building NE and EE infrastructure. Such EE measures have not yet been enacted because of market barriers and lack of awareness, obstacles the EERS will break through.

Because it is labor-intensive, EE increases jobs and GDP quickly. It boosts GDP over the longer term by cutting energy consumption and driving down the allowance price.

EE will save $312 billion by 2030, one-third from industrial efficiency and two-thirds from building improvements. McKinsey & Company has estimated there are 5 times more savings available by 2020, the largest parts from building retrofits, better lighting and more efficient appliances, and improved industry practices. Tools to achieve such measures are (1) stronger codes and standards, (2) financial incentives, and (3) decoupling of utility profits from sales.

QUOTESFrom the ClimateWorks Foundation report: “The study finds that an economy-wide cap on GHG emissions would have significant impacts on US energy production and use. The model predicts a transition to low-carbon energy sources and energy efficiency in response to carbon pricing, incentives linked to carbon allowances, and supporting efficiency standards…The economic implications of this energy transition are complex, but the model points to investments in energy efficiency and new power sources as a primary stimulant of economic activity, particularly employment. In this way, the cap drives job gains in many sectors…”

"The power purchase agreements support Consumers Energy's plan to increase its renewable energy supply portfolio to 10 percent by 2015 to meet the requirements of Michigan's energy reform law…Consumers Energy is the largest supplier of renewable energy in Michigan. More than 4 percent of [its] power…comes from renewable sources based in the state. Energy from the four new projects will bring the total expected supply from renewable sources to over 6.2 percent…

"Once ready for construction, the new wind projects are each expected to create between 150 and 200 construction jobs…"

"…[Transform Solar] formed by Boise-based Micron Technology Inc. and Origin Energy of Australia…[plan] to start making extremely thin but highly efficient solar cells that will be available next year.

"Transform Solar officials say the so-called sliver solar cells will be made at a plant in Boise where Micron once made computer chips, and the cells will be combined into solar panels at another plant owned by Micron in Nampa…Transform Solar has hired 70 employees and expects to hire up to 50 more, with most of the jobs based in southwest Idaho."

"Micron and Origin late last year announced the agreement that officials said takes advantage of Origin's experience in energy markets and Micron's expertise in making thin semiconductors… Transform Solar's manufacturing and research will be based in southwest Idaho, and more research and development will be done in Adelaide, Australia.

"Company officials say that because the sliver solar cells are so thin, the cost of the silicon used to make them can be reduced by 90 percent, making the cells competitive in the crowded solar energy field…[T]he cells are less than 50 microns, or less than two-thousandths of an inch, making them the thinnest in production, and bifacial, meaning they can capture sun energy from both faces."

"Earlier this month, Transform Solar introduced its sliver technology at the Intersolar trade show in Germany…Boise Mayor Dave Bieter announced earlier this month that solar panels using the technology will be used in a $45 million facility proposed by Sunergy World near the Boise Airport that will be able to generate 10 megawatts…

"Elected leaders in the region are hoping the hiring of workers to build the panels is a sign of better times ahead…"

"US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack unveiled a roadmap…outlining a regional strategy to help meet the target of 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022…

"The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) [Regional Roadmap] identifies numerous biomass feedstocks – including switchgrass, corn, crop residues and municipal waste – that could be used to produce biofuel and calls for further research into new feedstocks, sustainable production methods and efficient conversion technologies."

"The main obstacle to reaching the country’s target of 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022 is the currently restricted market, because of the small number of flex fuel vehicles and the inability of standard vehicles to use higher biofuel blends.

"The report calls for a rapid expansion of blender pumps and flex fuel vehicles, as well as approval of higher blends of ethanol in conventional fuels."

"…[F]rom [all the] sounds in the world…Nissan just made it's choice [of one to warn pedestrians that a super-quiet electric car is about pass by], and it sounds…sort of like a mix of a jet engine and the cartoon Jetsons' spacecraft…The noise is going into [Nissan’s] first electric car, the Leaf, which goes on sale later this year…"

Forward. From GMVolt via YouTube

Reverse. From GMVolt via YouTube

"…Don't like the noise? Nissan installed a switch in the car that allows drivers to turn it off, but that feature is raising concerns from groups representing the blind…[Reports say] the sound was four years in the making, and was developed with the help of acoustic psychology experts at Vanderbilt University, a Hollywood sound studio, and others. The sound had to be audible to a wide range of people, especially old people and the hearing impaired. Nissan says it went through 100 different sounds…"

Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that will ReCharge America by Sherry Boschert: "Smart companies plan ahead and try to be the first to adopt new technology that will give them a competitive advantage. That’s what Toyota and Honda did with hybrids, and now they’re sitting pretty. Whichever company is first to bring a good plug-in hybrid to market will not only change their fortune but change the world."

Oil On The Brain; Adventures from the Pump to the Pipeline by Lisa Margonelli: "Spills are one of the costs of oil consumption that don’t appear at the pump. [Oil consultant Dagmar Schmidt Erkin]’s data shows that 120 million gallons of oil were spilled in inland waters between 1985 and 2003. From that she calculates that between 1980 and 2003, pipelines spilled 27 gallons of oil for every billion “ton miles” of oil they transported, while barges and tankers spilled around 15 gallons and trucks spilled 37 gallons. (A ton of oil is 294 gallons. If you ship a ton of oil for one mile you have one ton mile.) Right now the United States ships about 900 billion ton miles of oil and oil products per year."

NOTEWORTHY IN THE MEDIA:
NewEnergyNews would welcome any media-saavy volunteer who would like to re-develop this section of the page. Announcements and reviews of film, television, radio and music related to energy and environmental issues are welcome.

Review of OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The American Decades by Mark S. Friedman

OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The American Decades, the second volume of Herman K. Trabish’s retelling of oil’s history in fiction, picks up where the first book in the series, OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The Story of Our Addiction, left off. The new book is an engrossing, informative and entertaining tale of the Roaring 20s, World War II and the Cold War. You don’t have to know anything about the first historical fiction’s adventures set between the Civil War, when oil became a major commodity, and World War I, when it became a vital commodity, to enjoy this new chronicle of the U.S. emergence as a world superpower and a world oil power.

As the new book opens, Lefash, a minor character in the first book, witnesses the role Big Oil played in designing the post-Great War world at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Unjustly implicated in a murder perpetrated by Big Oil agents, LeFash takes the name Livingstone and flees to the U.S. to clear himself. Livingstone’s quest leads him through Babe Ruth’s New York City and Al Capone’s Chicago into oil boom Oklahoma. Stymied by oil and circumstance, Livingstone marries, has a son and eventually, surprisingly, resolves his grievances with the murderer and with oil.

In the new novel’s second episode the oil-and-auto-industry dynasty from the first book re-emerges in the charismatic person of Victoria Wade Bridger, “the woman everybody loved.” Victoria meets Saudi dynasty founder Ibn Saud, spies for the State Department in the Vichy embassy in Washington, D.C., and – for profound and moving personal reasons – accepts a mission into the heart of Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe. Underlying all Victoria’s travels is the struggle between the allies and axis for control of the crucial oil resources that drove World War II.

As the Cold War begins, the novel’s third episode recounts the historic 1951 moment when Britain’s MI-6 handed off its operations in Iran to the CIA, marking the end to Britain’s dark manipulations and the beginning of the same work by the CIA. But in Trabish’s telling, the covert overthrow of Mossadeq in favor of the ill-fated Shah becomes a compelling romance and a melodramatic homage to the iconic “Casablanca” of Bogart and Bergman.

Monty Livingstone, veteran of an oil field youth, European WWII combat and a star-crossed post-war Berlin affair with a Russian female soldier, comes to 1951 Iran working for a U.S. oil company. He re-encounters his lost Russian love, now a Soviet agent helping prop up Mossadeq and extend Mother Russia’s Iranian oil ambitions. The reunited lovers are caught in a web of political, religious and Cold War forces until oil and power merge to restore the Shah to his future fate. The romance ends satisfyingly, America and the Soviet Union are the only forces left on the world stage and ambiguity is resolved with the answer so many of Trabish’s characters ultimately turn to: Oil.

Commenting on a recent National Petroleum Council report calling for government subsidies of the fossil fuels industries, a distinguished scholar said, “It appears that the whole report buys these dubious arguments that the consumer of energy is somehow stupid about energy…” Trabish’s great and important accomplishment is that you cannot read his emotionally engaging and informative tall tales and remain that stupid energy consumer. With our world rushing headlong toward Peak Oil and epic climate change, the OIL IN THEIR BLOOD series is a timely service as well as a consummate literary performance.

Review of OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The Story of Our Addiction by Mark S. Friedman

"...ours is a culture of energy illiterates." (Paul Roberts, THE END OF OIL)

OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, a superb new historical fiction by Herman K. Trabish, addresses our energy illiteracy by putting the development of our addiction into a story about real people, giving readers a chance to think about how our addiction happened. Trabish's style is fine, straightforward storytelling and he tells his stories through his characters.

The book is the answer an oil family's matriarch gives to an interviewer who asks her to pass judgment on the industry. Like history itself, it is easier to tell stories about the oil industry than to judge it. She and Trabish let readers come to their own conclusions.

She begins by telling the story of her parents in post-Civil War western Pennsylvania, when oil became big business. This part of the story is like a John Ford western and its characters are classic American melodramatic heroes, heroines and villains.

In Part II, the matriarch tells the tragic story of the second generation and reveals how she came to be part of the tales. We see oil become an international commodity, traded on Wall Street and sought from London to Baku to Mesopotamia to Borneo. A baseball subplot compares the growth of the oil business to the growth of baseball, a fascinating reflection of our current president's personal career.

There is an unforgettable image near the center of the story: International oil entrepreneurs talk on a Baku street. This is Trabish at his best, portraying good men doing bad and bad men doing good, all laying plans for wealth and power in the muddy, oily alley of a tiny ancient town in the middle of everywhere. Because Part I was about triumphant American heroes, the tragedy here is entirely unexpected, despite Trabish's repeated allusions to other stories (Casey At The Bat, Hamlet) that do not end well.

In the final section, World War I looms. Baseball takes a back seat to early auto racing and oil-fueled modernity explodes. Love struggles with lust. A cavalry troop collides with an army truck. Here, Trabish has more than tragedy in mind. His lonely, confused young protagonist moves through the horrible destruction of the Romanian oilfields only to suffer worse and worse horrors, until--unexpectedly--he finds something, something a reviewer cannot reveal. Finally, the question of oil must be settled, so the oil industry comes back into the story in a way that is beyond good and bad, beyond melodrama and tragedy.

Along the way, Trabish gives readers a greater awareness of oil and how we became addicted to it. Awareness, Paul Roberts said in THE END OF OIL, "...may be the first tentative step toward building a more sustainable energy economy. Or it may simply mean that when our energy system does begin to fail, and we begin to lose everything that energy once supplied, we won't be so surprised."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.